Hey folks, Harry here with the DJANGO UNCHAINED trailer.... The official premiere is supposed to be at Fandango this afternoon, but I still haven't seen that. Over at DailyMotion they had this embed, so I figured we've all waited long enough - here ya go:

Alright, now let's chat about it. DJANGO UNCHAINED is QT's southern, which I do believe could very well be the best script of Tarantino's that I've yet read. Chief among the reasons is the laser focus he has to developing the singular character of Django. That shot of Django & Franco Nero sitting at the bar... SO FUCKING COOL! Seriously, so fucking cool. Hopefully there'll be a better embed soon, but for now - there it is. Enjoy!

...why do writers on this site keep calling it a "southern"? It's a fuckin western(which is a genre its ownself) I mean The Magnificent Seven and The Wild bunch take place a lot farther south than this but are still called westerns. Plus, there sure seems to be a lot of western geography in this. I know that it's supposed to end up in the south(or not, don't know, I hate to read scripts before I watch a movie) but still.

Unlike other trailers that incorporate music that doesn't fit the time period. Who thought James Brown The Big Payback didn't fit! Cannot wait for this,
"Killing white folk for money. What's not to like?" LOL that was hilarious.
Christoph Waltz great!
Dicaprio AWESOME!
Oh and a delicious looking Kerry Washington
In the words of Bart Scott
CAN'T WAIT.

We all know that Tarantino's trailers are usually interesting and well-cut with some catchy music to keep you interested.
Unfortunately his last few movies have become worse and worse. DEATH PROOF was boring nonsense. I made it through about half of INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. I doubt this will be much better.
Where did that guy go who directed RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION and KILL BILL Part I (I can't stand the second part)? Bring him back please. This imposter is destroying his good name.

fuck am I missing? This looks like shite. Poor QT, peaked in his first movie, and going to be chasing that magic for the rest of his career.
But, Waltz IS a fucking bad-ass. At least he'll balance out the constantly underwhelming ability of Foxx.

...'you had my curiosity..now you have my attention' FUCK
Remember walking out of the Cameo in Edinburgh in 94 after Resevoir Dogs and strangers talking to each other, blown away by what we had seen.
..People forget what a game changer Tarantino has been.

More fanboy wank.
Music that doesn't fit at all. Normal dialogue.
2 good films. Reservoir dogs and then your peak, Jackie Brown where you almost looked like you could go on to be a great film maker . . but didn't.
I know there is a good film maker in there but everything you seem to do is so one note you have long since become a caricature of yourself. Please one day break free from this

Character named (D)jango who is a bounty hunter!!!
I kid I kid.
Looks pretty good. Def catch this one. Not the biggest fan of T but Basterds was great. Plus I'm a bit of a Leo fanboy with his strike rate since Blood Diamond.

It was 92, was trying to line it up with something in my life that happened in 94..
Dogs had a re-release in 93 that i saw in the Odeon as well. That was a bad experience, by that time the media had decided that this was a film about...A POLICEMAN GETS HIS EAR CUT OF IN CLOSE UP DETAIL!!!..so the theatre was full of twats getting bored at the 'talky bits' an being dissapointed at the action...soured it just a wee bit for me.
It's my fault he got shot in the gut!

This autistic, narcissistic, spaz is one of our true cinematic auteurs bespeaks the quality of American movies.
Seriously, go back and re-watch Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the films his high reputation entirely rests on. Dogs is incredibly light and insubstantial, barely 90 minutes, almost nothing happens, we learn little about the characters, the point of the film is fetishizing and stylizing violence. There's no suspense, and less memorable bits of dialogue than you might think.
Pulp Fiction has some great bits, but the enormously long Bruce Willis section in the middle of the film completely derails the story. Travolta's performance is terrible, he's just there, it's stunt casting.
The most overrated filmmaker of all time. I can't wait until the mediocre Django Unchained comes out, and everyone convinces themselves that it's genius, because we have so few high profile writer-directors.

...if you really feel as though by the end of Reservoir Dogs you didn't know much about the central characters you've made a very strong statement about your powers of observation.
Perhaps you meant you didn't know much about the history of the characters, which is an entirely different matter and one that is entirely irrelevant in judging the quality of a film.
I won't address your feelings about Pulp Fiction because they would appear to be matters of taste. I disagree with you on both counts but that's life.

Is it a call-back to another movie, perhaps? It seems like a 4th-wall fuckup of a line, is all.
I'm not attracted to the ugliness and the masturbatory settling of national and racial scores that were so important to Inglourious Basterds, and this movie looks to be cut from the same cloth. Don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good movie about personal vengeance and I really liked Kill Bill. Picking at racial scabs is something else though: it's easy and it's cheap. I hope the trailers are overselling those elements, but Basterds makes me doubt that.
I'd be a fool to write off this movie based on trailers and plot synopsis alone though. Tarantino's past work is enough to get my butt in that seat.

...please. There's even a preening patter they adhere to like some kind of hipster sadducees.
At this point I can pretty well recite it by heart:
'Tarantino stole so much, so many precise shots and words from other filmmakers. Jackie Brown was his best and only honest film, but its critical and popular failure frightened him into an eternal adolescence.'
It's a nice rap, until you force them to defend their positions with specifics.
But you remember that.

Evidently you've never seen Scorsese speak. Or any number of current, well-known directors. They tend to be a slightly odd bunch.
<p>
And I too completely disagree with every one of your opinions regarding Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

If Django Unchained makes money (duh), then it will pave the way for my dream of Sam Jackson as the Ghost of Nat Turner, who comes back from the dead to kill more white people.
On the 4th of July.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS, MOTHERFUCKER!!!"

... is that I constantly feel like he's standing behind me, tapping my on the shoulder, saying "See that shot? Isn't that cool? Hear that line of dialogue? See what I did there?" I always sense a kind of smug arrogance that keeps me at a distance.
Maybe if he weren't so self-aggrandizing, explaining why his movies are so great, I wouldn't get such a vibe. But I always hear him calling attention to himself, and it keeps me from fully participating in his films.

We have waited so long for this, only the Second Coming would have really impressed me
that being said, great start, and it's a QT flick, his pretentious crap is still more entertaining than most of the stuff that gets pushed by Holyweed

I'm excited just to see Leo smile in a movie, even if his character ends up being a sadistic monster. Don't get me wrong, I love Leo and think he's one of (if not the) best actor of his generation. But he's always such a morose character.
So excited to see this movie - I honestly felt that Inglorious Basterds was the best movie QT has made. It was a more serious work that I felt I could become more emotionally involved in (I'm looking at you Shoshana).

I wonder if TARANTINO found the pin BUDD BOETTICHER drove in the rocks in the scene he shot with the slaves walking in a line... Can't wait I saw four of my favorite films in DJANGO: UNCHAINED...
Why can't DECMBER come quick enough.

Thats like saying, My name is Tom...the Q is silent. No one would think there is a Q in Tom so why say it. Its something that would make more sense when written in a book or script. Like, My name is Qtom...,the Q is silent.

Me and some buddies went opening night. It was a full house and everyone was way into the flick. One of the most energetic screenings of any movie I've ever been to. The scene where one of the characters exclaimed "fuck a duck!" caused one of the my friends to shout in the middle of the theater, "BUT THAT'S NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE!" Theater roared with laughter.
Good times.

I can't get a handle on Waltz's accent. For such a damn fine actor, he sure let's his German come through his New Yorker. Or maybe that's written in--German immigrant, perhaps. Sorry if that's already known, I haven't seen much news on the details.

The more patient, lyrical moments in QT's films can't really be put into modern movie trailer format so this could be a misrepresentation. I was expecting something a little more raw and less jokey but that's marketing folk for ya. They'll always cram in the yuks and the pratfalls into a trailer as subtlety is anathema to them.

Foxx doesn't work for me. Would have preferred maybe, Chiwetel.
This doesn't look anywhere near as good as Inglourious Basterds, which for me will prob always be QT's best film whatever he releases in the future. I think that will be his best work. There are two or three scenes in that movie that are phenomenal.
Waltz was sensational in Basterds but also he was relatively unknown. Now, whilst still being a good actor his performances are samey.

I didn't thnk about it but you're right, Leo is looking great in this trailer and a big part of that is we're seeing him be charming and fun, something we get to enjoy far too rarely (Catch Me If You Can being the only recent example I can think of).

i was a big qt fan - now im a troll - i saw reservoir dogs the first week it came out - feels like a lifetime ago - for some of his current fans it may as well be - rd made a huge impression on me back then - then pulp fiction lived up to and surpassed its hype, awesome - jackie brown, great - kill bill, a tad forced but wow - then he met eli roth - and has been making the same movie since kill bill 2 - he cant or wont make a straight genre film - maybe he's afraid if he did no one would know he directed it, without all the loud derivative window dressing - there were 3 solid scenes in basterds which were pitch perfect examples of great film making - then there was the rest of the movie smeared with qt's greasy referential fingerprints - its now the qt template with a genre shoe horned into it, thats his deal - we got his nod to shaw bros., ww2 action(?) and now its james brown blaring behind a cartoon blaxploitation western smattered wth modern west coast vernacular - ill pass this time stay home and just rewatch the original "django" and "buck and the preacher"

Can someone please explain why its so cool to dislike Jamie Foxx as an actor, considering the above list? It almost makes more sense to have an irrational hate-on for QT, because there at least one can beg off as being an irredeemable hipster.

I was a big fan of Jamie's in Any Given Sunday, thinkin he should be nominated as best supporting actor... but nope
after that, he's been in a series of movies that i didn't like or care about.
so yea... I wish this role was given to someone else...
BUT THEN AGAIN... this is Tarantino... he may make me a fan again (doubt it because Jamie is gonna go for the quick bucks with stupid movie choices)
ps: although i am interested in seeing a wanda/shenaynay movie too

Tarrantino is certainly a good director. This does not mean he is a good story teller.
Why?
That's simple: He never really has any stories to tell.
What are his stories?
Are you still thinking?
Oh, there's a catch: You're not allowed to use the word "revenge."
Still with me?
Yep.
Keep thinking.
Have I made my point?
This guy cannot tell a story, because he never has a story.
Kill Bill were well made films. Not genius, not spectacular, just good old fashioned solid.
But so what?
It was just about revenge. Tarrantino's basic philosophy is: If somebody wrongs you, you pay them back.
Okay, so we get the point.
What's next for this wonderfully creative (sarcasm) man?
I think if Tarrantino were in this room, he would defend himself with
"Real life is not about stories. It's about characters. It's about focusing on the development of the characters, their journeys and their interactions..."
This may sound good on paper, and it does (I am somebody who firmly thinks that Cinema should be Character driven, with the story enveloping the development of these characters), but the problem is, Tarrantino doesn't develop his characters either.
Take Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Which characters actually developed? Okay, the single character I can think of, is Samual L Jackson. He did undergo a rather nice catharsis in Pulp Fiction.
I do appreciate that. Okay, who else? What about the Bride from Kill Bill? All she did is kill a bunch of people. Being emotional and going through ups and downs is NOT character development.
Some basic examples of character development:
-Neo in Matrix.
-Luke Skywalker in Star Wars trilogy
-Michael Corleone in Godfather 1+2
-Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption
-Frodo and Sam from Lord of the Rings trilogy
etc.
And please do not retort with "But Tarrantino's films are not like that."
No. That's no excuse. Cinema is about 2 things, first and foremost:
1)Character Development.
2)Story.
Tarrantino's films do not feature much in the way of both.
Conclusion: Tarrantino needs to get back to scriptwriting classes and learn how to structure story and development. He can write witty and engaging dialogue, no questions there, but as for the meat of it -- he is a pretender.
And every fucking idiot on this forum (oh, I am sure you're going to whinge about me, because I am right, and that's not an opinion) who claims Tarrantino is some brilliant auteur, is a clueless chimp.
I have no ego, so spare me the petty insults.
Facts are Facts. I enjoy his films, but they are hollow, empty exercises in superficial entertainment. I know this, and I wish Tarrantino knew this too (and more importantly, acted to improve his work, instead of pissing out the same drivel he has been for the past....well...entire career or so.)
And that's all there is to say about Mr. Tarrantino.

QT's use of 70s music and exploitation film style is what made me hate Inglorious Basterds and will make me hate this if it does the same goddam thing. Quick-zooms and neon name-plates didn't belong in a WWII movie, funk music doesn't belong in a Western. It's anachronistic bullshit and while some might call it QT's "signature style", I call it fucking nonsense. Get a new gimmick, dude. Or better yet, stop relying on gimmicks and make a real movie.

Sorry buddy, have yet to see that film.
I might watch it in the next few weeks. I understand he wrote the story for it.
Well, I have yet to see it -- sorry that I cannot be of further assistance to you.
He did not, however, direct that film. I do not claim that he has never in his life written a coherent story.
I do claim, however, that basically every film he has ever directed, are story-less and without any character development.
And in real life, there is plenty of character development (you and I go through character development over time -- although some take longer than others).
The story does not have to be epic or taken out of context, but the basic rules in film making are: If you have character development, you have a story.
I have yet to see this in Tarrantino directed films. He may have written something to the effect of a story in his life, but not ones, which he has both written and directed for the screen.
I think that when Tarrantino was an up-and-coming director, this can be excused.
But now that he has been sufficiently exposed and experienced, it's time to actually tell a tale that goes beyond basic revenge (that includes Inglorious Bastards).
Why do I want this? Well, it's because the films would significantly improve. He knows how to stage a good, engaging scene and he can direct actors well and give them good lines to say.
Now all we need is the heart of it: Development and Story. If he adhered to this basic principle, he might one day make a perfect film.
And once again: Life is more than just about revenge, so he should drum it into his head, that his next film will not be about a blood-soaked crusade to avenge past wrongs.
In fact, I wouldn't call *any* revenge movie a story. I would call it a "reaction."
In other words, revenge can well be a motivating factor, but it should not be the entire story, precisely because all it is, is a reaction to a previous event.
Before I leave, I want to leave some more food for thought, and not just grumble:
Take a look at the original Star Wars trilogy, and the new Prequel Trilogy. The Prequel Trilogy had a superb story IN THEORY, but in practise, it was ruined by his direction and writing.
You could say that he even had character development. Obi Wan and Anakin certainly developed. So did Palpatine. But that very development and resulting story were so atrociously conceived, that they are hailed as good examples of how *NOT* to make a film.
But when it does come to the basics, Lucas' shitty prequels are far superior in certain respects than anything Tarrantino has done. This just shows you that film making really is something beyond the grasp and reach of most.
It is a magical event, when a great movie is made. This is why it's a great shame, that this new film seems like another worthless story with limited development, complemented with witty dialogue and engaging scenes. In other words: The usual Tarrantino. He needs to move beyond his comfort zone, if he is going to be remembered as one of the greats.
So far, as I have said before, he is still pretending. But he has the potential to be great, which is why I am complaining in the first place.

And no one has to spend a dime on what he makes, or take a minute out of their day to watch it.
But many will. I know I will.
If you don't like hamburgers, don't walk into a burger joint and complain. Makes you sound like a... well, a fuckin' complainer. You should know by now what's on the menu.
Ya Dig?

It's funny, cause in the script his part is almost as big as Leonardo DiCaprio's role.
That's cool that they're keeping his performance a surprise.
It think it's hilarious how everyone is going nuts about Leo and talking about how he's going to own this movie.
After reading the script I can honestly say, you guys have no idea! Samuel L. Jackson is going to blow your mind! He's easily my favorite character in the script. Can't wait to see the role realized, and I will be shocked if Jackson doesn't knock it out of the park.

Complaining (I refer to complaining as 'Constructive Criticism,' and not the other kind, i.e. 'Destructive [pointless] Criticism') is useful, because without it, nothing in this world would improve.
Self-Proclaimed artists would think they are, well, artists, and politicians and dictators would get away with robbing/pillaging the citizens scot-free.
Without criticism, DEVELOPMENT (love that word) is impossible.
Nature criticizes too. If you place your hand in a fire and burn yourself, nature says "Hold on, dumb-ass..."
I am tired of this anarchistic attitude of "do whatever you want, and let people vote with their wallets..."
This only leads to stagnation. And stagnation leads to destruction.
If nature had that philosophy, all you mongoloids in this forum would have been dead a long time ago.
So my point is: Deal with constructive criticism by learning to be better.
Nobody has the right to have an ego, because nobody is perfect. Complaining for the sake of complaining is also worthless, which is why complaints should be followed by suggestions for improvement.
And I have done so, which is why my complaints are valid. And if enough people complain, maybe Tarrantino will get off his high saddle and actually make a film that has a story and character development.
Hey, it's his life, his legacy. But consumers have a basic right to complain, and anybody who argues this, should crawl back into a cave and be content with stone-age technology.
After all, not being content with the present, is precisely what drove our ancestors to improve technology and culture -- and thereby leave the caves. If you are blind to this basic human reality, then you're brain farts should be kept silent, for you alone to sniff.

It's not that I don't like hamburgers, I LOVE hamburgers. But I hate shitty hamburgers. So when I walk into a burger joint and order a hamburger expecting to enjoy myself and instead get a pile of shit, I'm going to complain.
Therefore, I can say the trailer did nothing for me. I also read the script, a one note revenge piece with about about 10 scenes, all overwritten and undercharming. And nothing I've seen here made it seem like QT has elevated the material as he used to in his glory days of Pulp or Reservoir. He's still stuck in his cheesy-B-movie phase. My two cents.

Didn't your mama tell you? No one likes a know-it-all. Especially when they have to tell you how much of a know it all they are and how much of a simp YOU are. Which, of course, means you don't know shit.
You lack imagination, kid, you fail to see the larger picture. I'm not about to spend the rest of my night trying to convince you of anything, cause...what for? You don't like it? Great! good for you. But to spend all your efforts to be superior (because that's what you're doing, trying to be the smartest guy here) is just pitiful. Everything you say is a FACT and your FACTS are indisputable. They are, however, Opinions. No one has a claim as to what art is, it is all a point of view, and yours suits you, but it is not the only one nor is it the "correct" one. What you are doing is being a superior asshole.
That's all I got for you. I don't debate with chimps. I've tried. I know you'll insult me in some way, and I am quite sure you are superior. Enjoy your throne. (tips hat, walks off)

See, here's a good example of my previous point -- Anarchy.
You think that "art" is excused from being objective, just because some people incorrectly philosophize about its supposedly 'subjective' (and therefore opinion-dominated) nature?
Here's one thing you need to learn: Art is not exempt from objectivity. This means, you cannot be a cheap donkey and proclaim that "it's just a matter of opinion."
No, it is not.
There are objective principles of beauty and ugliness, of harmony and discord, of art and non-art.
It's just that you are too intellectually lazy, to recognize this.
Every person who claims that art is about opinion (or anything is about opinion, for that matter), is intellectually lazy. Pure and simple.
The ancient greek mathematicians and philosophers already investigated the nature of 'beauty,' and believe it or not, my friend, nature does indeed have objective values for beauty and what may constitute as art.
A crude example: pulling your pants down and taking a shit onto a platter and presenting it to people as your very own art-work, is not art.
Even if a Russian Billionaire decided to purchase it for a few million dollars, it still is not art.
Even if the entire world went crazy over this piece of shit on a platter, and wrote poems/songs/blogs/articles about this wonderful piece of shit that came oozing out of the asshole of a brilliant and daring 'artist,' it still does not constitute art.
Why not? Because I said so? No.
Nature has basic laws that govern beauty, in the way of forms, melodies, compositions of various ideas, etc.
Take the filmic medium, for example: A film without character development and story, is not real art, because it does not reflect the basic principles of natural law. Nature works at a fundamental level with development (also known as evolution) and there is a story to it (also known as purpose).
If you take away purpose and development, you lack a natural counterpart in reality, and thereby, you have nothing but an individual production without value (also known as a piece of shit).
I will not go as far as saying that Tarantino's films are a "piece of shit," but I will say that on an objective scale, yes, even 'artistically', they have little to no value, and are thus without much merit.
This is not my opinion. This is the way our universe is designed and works at a fundamental level. Is this my opinion? No, it's measurable, observable and reproducible fact. In other words, it's a scientific reality.
Art and Science are not separate, but complementary. A lowly evolved and rather primitive mind like yours will never comprehend this, and I do sympathize with your unfortunate condition.
The indisputable facts remain, however, and you may sit there and try to force your "it's all about opinion" lazy philosophy all you wish.
You're simply producing further worthless excrement into the world and nothing more.

Are you referring to me, friend?
Believe it or not, I am good-looking, slim, and I have a gorgeous (in the objective sense, not in the "she has a great personality," although she has that too!) girlfriend, and I get quite my fair share of stares on the street.
The good kind of stare, by the way.
Anyway, another pointless cliche, if you were referring to me, that is.
And I am not sitting here spending my life writing comments. I sometimes log on, about once a month or two, to spend maybe 1 or 2 hours sacrificing my time to increase the overall iq of these talk backs.
A modest contribution, from a humble man.
:-)

Maybe it's because Westerns bore me, but I couldn't get excited by the "Tarantino does Spagetti westerns, isn't it awesome!" message of the trailer.
Just too hyped up for Prometheus & Dark Knight Rises for anything else to register...I'll see it anyway though.

You don't look at a Basquiat and say he should or rather MUST paint a Rembrandt to be an acceptable voice. Tarantino does what he does, and I suspect he will never follow your within-the-lines aesthetic. The obvious retort is Basquiat never had or aspire to Rembrandt's master skills of portraiture, paint, and light and is thus diminished. I'd simply say they are speaking different languages. I see skillful communication in both.

man......another one of these trailers that basically spells out the whole story (or at least a large part of it)
why do people want to see these?
(and why would Tarantine want to have one for HIS movie, he knows better)

.....no one would give a fuck." That may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this site, outside of Harry's Godzilla review. Of course people are going to be interested in something a particular director with a proven track record and style does. That's like saying "a movie about some kids and an alien ? If Steven Spielberg wasn't attached to this, no one would give a fuck."

Please, let us not start calling a hamburger a helicopter.
You can sugarcoat it in superficially pleasant language like "speaking a different language" all you wish, but even with communication, there are superior and inferior forms of it.
There is a richer language and poorer language. There is precise language and there is vagueness.
"Blah BlahBlahBlah B l a h, b-l-ah, BlAH BLAH BBBBLAHHHH" can also be a language, with its own grammatical rules, basic formats of semantics/syntax and sentential structure. So what? It's still rubbish. It's rubbish, because it is lacking in richness. Sounds, variety, uniqueness, etc, all contribute to a superior language.
Having the same word in simply different combinations (as per above example) may well replicate the entire works of Shakespeare, it will, however, still be garbage and certainly not art, because it is ugly, by virtue of the above mentioned poorness in variety and monotonicity of sound.
Are you going to argue this? How about I give you a steaming pile of shit and tell you that this is high art in the vein of Leonardo/Michaelangelo, I am just communicating something different in my own way...
Would you think of me as honest, or would you think of me as a charlatan?
There are superior communicators of language and inferior ones.
The key notion for you to understand is: The "relational" symbols ("<","=",">") from mathematics apply here, even for art!
Nobody here is arguing that there are different forms of communicating the same thing.
What I am trying to educate you people in, is the basic fact that there are SUPERIOR and INFERIOR methods of communicating the exact same thing, and this is OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE!
I think you answered your own comments: Rembrandt is superior (as an artist) to Basquiat, because he had superior skills and more importantly show-cased these skills throughout his art, thereby, communicating art through a superior use of artistic language.
End of discussion. I don't care about meanginless details, such as "Oh, but he wasn't trying to communicate Rembrandt's language..." etc.
Who cares? He can communicate what he likes. If he wishes to shit on a plastic Earth Globe, and say to the world "My message is: The world is a piece of shit!" and people agree with him, it's still rubbish, primitive, worthless defecation, and NOT art!
I don't wish to get into further details. I will leave with the following: Think about colors and sounds. Ask yourself what superior sounds and inferior sounds are. Is consonance superior to dissonance? (Answer: YES!) What about superior and inferior colors? Do you think red is on par with something like orange or white or yellow? What about brown? Do you think brown is a beautiful color? If not, why do you think this is so? (Think of it from a scientific/nature-based point of view).
But try to think about it yourself. Do some research. Investigate plant (speak: nature) behavior in response to classical music, as opposed to metal music, for instance.
Hey, in defense of metal: I love death metal! But I can also admit that it is not art. I am not going to get emotional about this and defend myself to the grave. I simply have to admit: Not everything we like or appreciate, is worthy of appreciation.
So, the hard reality is: Death Metal music is mostly rubbish (not art), but I enjoy it nonetheless (I really do. My favs are Dark Tranquility, Amon Amarth, In Flames [old and new], Opeth, etc)
So, my point is: People shouldn't get attached to their favorite producers of works, and call everything art or "in the eye of the beholder".
Do you think beauty is in the eye of the beholder? What about an obese woman, with a yeast infection in her bloated twat, bits of feces dangling down her asshole and sweat stains on her singlet. You think beauty is a matter of discussion like that?
Okay, "Unfair!" you say. Well, even with super models, there is still a superior and inferior facial structure, nice lips and uglier lips. Prettier eyes and less pretty eyes. This is all objective.
Remember: EVEN if you prefer one over another, it DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT, IN THE STRICTEST SENSE! IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU UNDERSTAND BEAUTY, WHICH IS OBJECTIVE, NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!! (I am repeating myself, I know).
Art is something higher and it is rarely practiced by human beings. It is a science in its own right, and it is objective (not a matter of opinion).
All the great artists, had their own ways of communicating the same message, but their ways were high quality, because they resonate with the higher forms in nature.
Please note: Even defecation is a part of nature, but it is a base part. It is not something elevated, by virtue of it being excrement, and therefore useless (if our bodies had use for it, we wouldn't excrete it).
Humanity is a long way off, until it can appreciate true art. Just because they can not, does not mean it is subjective and a "matter of opinion."
And that's that.

Can hardly believe this got made. The humor is obviously to defuse the fear and tension around one of the most charged and forbidden subjects in American cinema--the reality of slavery. There've been more American movies about the Holocaust--which didn't even happen here--than slavery, which did, and triggered the bloodiest war in our history. Can't believe this. He has to find a way to make white audiences cheer something they want desperately to avoid looking at--but must look at to complete America's transition to the future. This is the proper use of art. Tarantino makes movies about movies about us, and is a staggeringly powerful artist who often plays in the sandbox ("Death Proof", a deliberately awful movie) or fucks with people's heads ("Inglorious Basterds" with a deliberately awful performance by Brad Pitt juxtaposed against an Oscar-Winning performance by Christopher Waltz. Jesus, that was stunning). Can he pull it off? I'm betting on him. He made me laugh at Ving Rhames getting fucked in the ass by a hillbilly. I think he can make white people cheer at watching a black man kill white people. Will be hysterical to watch.

...I realize that you're just trolling. You had me for the first post but it became incredibly obvious as you moved on.
But I will address just a smidgen of what was in your first post anyway.
The Godfather: A simple revenge movie. The whole movie was about trying to pay back the families who were behind the hit on Don Vito.
Shawshank Redemption: A simple revenge movie. Andy was taking revenge on a corrupt system that had dehumanized him.
Star Wars: Do I really need to do this for all of them? Because it's easy.
If you don't get the themes of loyalty in Reservoir Dogs, how it examines where loyalties lie (with your fellow 'soldier', with your patron 'employer', with your ideal of your craft and the beauty of the conflict arising from this taking place over a representative of the law who is himself, in this situation, the character whose honor is thrown most in question...
...well then you probably do think Tarantino needs to go back to film school to study writing. Because all you'll ever be able to master is that tired old Syd Fields three acts and a cloud of dust. You're limited, and you will never understand anything more complex.
I could go on, of course. I could show you how Pulp Fiction, even with all its French New Wave influences, is actually a retelling of the Arthurian Romance, with Jackson as Perceval, Willis as Gawain and Rhames as Arthur. It's the story of a grail quest and every major character save ones shows growth. And perhaps the most important thing the movie reveals is what that inability to grow means for that character.
So...you said no one could tell you what stories these movies told without using the word revenge.
I just did. And I can tell you a lot more.
You lose.
Next.

...for anyone misreading the above...
...I am not suggesting that either The Godfather or The Shawshank Redemption are nothing but revenge movies.
I was just doing what Empie did to other movies with his intellectually lazy but morbidly bloated posts.

It's a street cred boaster around these parts to write "Death Proof" is an "awful" movie. Tarantino riffed on slasher movies and he flipped the id. Conquer your fear my friend, and you may just very surely kick it's f'ing ass, even if you are a girl/woman (as an aside, I loved Hit-Girl in "Kick Ass")

There's a scene in the script that is very Blazing Saddles-esque featuring the KKKlan and their hoodie eye holes. I can see it being cut since it really doesn't serve the narrative, kinda like Yuki's Revenge in Kill Bill. I hope that it's still in there because it was the funniest bit in the script.

But it was definitely his weakest film.
We spend half an hour listening to dizzy bimbos talk about nothing.
We spend 5 minutes watching them die.
We spend half an hour listening to a NEW BATCH of dizzy bimbos talk about nothing.
20 minutes of a pretty cool race and stunts.
That does not equal a great movie kids.

Somewhere along the line, he went from being a movie geek creating great films by revamping underrated genres in the explotation style like the crime story, horror film, martial art tale etc.
His stuff was gritty, retro and darkly funny.
But, once he got big - it became more and more about HIM. He began to almost parody himself.
Watching him and Robert Rodriquez at the Spike TV Scream Awards a few years ago pretty much sealed how out of control the ego was getting.
I want this to be good mind you. I liked Inglorious Basterds but there were cracks. At least compared to the fail that was Death Proof it was good to see some of his style come back.

Show, don't tell is one of the biggest templates that a screenwriter is supposed to use when using character development and moving the story forward in general. Yet Tarantino reguarly has his characters use pages and pages of exposition dialogue with the conversations going absolutely nowhere. Deathproof anyone? I'm amazed that he was able to get away with it at all, let alone craft two critically acclaimed films during the early 90's.

...this talkback provides amazing proof about how these little writing truisms lose their utility when they fall into the possession of people who crave mathematical rules for a creative process.
The three act structure. Write what you know. The inciting incident. Show don't tell. These and dozens more are helpful tools for teaching beginning writers. So is typing out The Red Badge of Courage. But just as you don't spend your life typing out works by great authors to immerse yourself in the flow of their prose and the construction of their plots you must also eventually develop your own unique narrative voice and that voice may well break any number of those truisms you get taught in college or *shiver* high school creative writing classes.
One of the reasons for the repetitive crap we see coming out of Hollywood today is the slavish worship of the three act structure. Three generations of prospective screenwriters have now been schooled in it as an absolute, and as time has gone on and instructors (and those who want to sell classes or books on writing) have struggled to best refine this structure we have come to have false climaxes and transitional characters morphing into the 'relationship' character and a host of other formulas and structures forced onto narratives unsuited for their strictures and that are ultimately distorted until they become a machine stamped product.
And this reassuring series of beats has become so ingrained that we have arrived at a place where quality is determined, by some, as a measure of how closely a particular film conforms to this formula.
There's nothing wrong with the three act formula. It is a wonderful tool for young writers who are learning how to shape a story, and it's a perfectly fine template for certain types of stories written by anyone at any stage in his or her career. The same is true of the truisms show don't tell or write what you know. But when they are latched onto by people searching for a dogma to relieve them from thinking, or even worse, adopted by folks who don't really understand the advice they are meant to impart...
...well, you get comments such as the ones you see in this talkback.

Is by writing, and reading. If it's screenplays you want, watch tons of movies and read their screenplays. There's nothing wrong with Syd Field or Robert McKee or beginner Shotokan class or Photoshop I. The only problem is when people fail to internalize the rules and then begin to play with them. I love an adaptation of Ray Bradbury's rules of writing, tweaked with Robert Heinlein (yeah, hate me, but I knew him too): Write a story a week, or a story every other week. Read ten times as much as you write. Put it in the mail, and keep it in the mail until it sells.
##
Do that, and you can have tons of fun reading all the books, attending all the lectures, trying different things and throwing them away...it's all fun, boys and girls. But the future belongs to those who do the work. Hollywood has always produced rafts of crap. And Hollywood is as good as any national motion picture industry in the world. The problem isn't Hollywood, it's the fact that 90% of everything is crap (Theodore Sturgeon's Law) but looking back, we forget the crap and remember only the good stuff. There's as much genius and artistry as ever there was, and the future of creativity looks just fine to me.

You seem to be somewhat misguided.
I never stated that the opinions of art teachers ought be followed.
I am all for uniqueness and individuality. But this cannot become confused to the extent that basic fundamentals are neglected.
The three act structure is certainly a convenient tool to learn.
There are certain rules for protagonists/antagonists that can be bent/broken.
However, you cannot break basic rules of story telling and art. If you have no story to tell and no development of characters, you have an empty product devoid of artistic merit.
The costumes can be brilliant. The acting sublime. The dialogue can be ingenious.
Etc.
If you fail with those 2 basic fundamentals, you have failed as an artist. In fact, you have failed to the extent that you have no right to call yourself one.
Anarchists think that everything (every rule) can and should be broken.
They are gravely mistaken. As I stated before: you can spray the walls with diarrhea and call it revolutionary and unique.
It certainly is. But it is not art, and this is not a matter of opinion.
Lawlessness cannot reign supreme in any field of human endeavor. Some people feel more "free", just because they can spit on the floor and have a tantrum and rebel against the established foundations of nature.
Well, try rebelling against nature. Put your hand in a fire and see how long you last. Call yourself daring and provocative and original, you'll still end up without a hand if you don't come to your senses quickly.
Fire can be manipulated and used as a tool to further a particular process. But it can also be destructive.
It's not as immediate and noticeable as perhaps your hand being burnt to a crisp, but you cannot fool nature into passing your half-assed brain-farts as something sublime.
Will any of you argue that Britney Spears is on par with Beethoven? Maybe the idiots in here will.
But for the more sensible, you will clearly recognize that Britney Spears is a cocophony compared to a Bach or a Beethoven or a Mozart. There is no opinion here.
Play Britney to a plant or to an elderly patient, and they will both likely agonize in pain (they being their organismic reactions). Even lovers of dog shit, will feel the effects, sooner or later (even if unconsciously, at first).
I detest weak and simple intellects who argue that everything is a matter of opinion and relativism.
It is not.
Britney is not even art. It's just commercial noise. Pop music is not art. Even Michael Jackson is a cocophony compared to a Vivaldi. This is, once again, not a matter of tastes/opinions/personal preferences/etc.
You may well prefer Michael over a Mozart, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It's just that you and your opinion are worthless, and you have no appreciation of true art.
Hey, this is okay, and I still respect your right to live and excrete your feces into the airways and online forums of this world. You might even be a good friend of mine. But I will not call you an artist or an authority on art.
You can smear your dick cheese on a piece of paper, and sprinkle some chilli and onion over it for good measure, and call it your unique flavor of art. You will simply be wrong, however. You are, of course, allowed to be wrong, and you're even allowed to believe that this is all a matter of opinion.
It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong, however.

...although I agree with much of what you wrote I would say that a greater problem than those who fail to internalize the rules before playing with them are those who internalize the rules to the exclusion of all else.
The folks who don't familiarize themselves with the basic tools in the box (unless they are blessed with extraordinary natural talent) rarely trouble anyone who hasn't been tasked with reading their way through slush piles (and who takes the responsibility very seriously...so basically new hires).
Those who internalize the rules to the absolure exclusion of all else (especially ones who do not personally create content) often find themselves in positions of power.
Oh, and I will say that as I've gotten older Sturgeon's Law occurs to me more often but seems less inherently true. This has little to do with our current discussion but it's another of those comforting little homilies that have the seeming of truth but actually perform more as a palliative.

I just read your more previous post, addressing me personally.
Thank you for demonstrating your ineptitude and underlining my points.
You're dribbling shit out of your ass and clutching at straws.
Your pathetic tactic is to look for a particular motive, and yell "HEY! That story is all about revenge!"
No it is not, you clueless half-wit.
You are searching for reasons to convince yourself that you have made some sort of point. You have not.
"The Godfather: A simple revenge movie. The whole movie was about trying to pay back the families who were behind the hit on Don Vito.
Shawshank Redemption: A simple revenge movie. Andy was taking revenge on a corrupt system that had dehumanized him.
Star Wars: Do I really need to do this for all of them? Because it's easy. "
Godfather is not a simple revenge movie. The entire movie was NOT about paying back families. Just because it had a motive for revenge, does not mean its centrepiece is about revenge (like Kill Bill is. Don't argue this, doofus).
Are you really this dumb, or pretending? In my previous post, I made clear that it is not wrong, on its own merits, to have revenge as a motivating factor.
I made this very clear. I stated that this alone does not a story make.
Take Godfather. The story is far more about Michael. He is the hero/antihero. The protagonist. The central character undergoing development. The story is finely tuned to telling a story (which, surprise surprise, INCLUDES but is not LIMITED to revenge) through the eyes and experiences of Michael.
You see his change. He is an idealistic patriot, who slowly recognizes the values (and hypocrisies) of family life and family business, which happens to be organized crime. You see broken relationships. You see broken families. And more importantly, you see Michael developing more and more into a cold, calculated, remorseless killer, who becomes that which he originally despised most.
And you have the audacity to call that a revenge movie?
Please. Fuck off, you insulting, half-assed twat. Don't waste my time, even if you are just pretending to be a mongoloid.
Shawshank is a revenge tale? Wtf?
Star Wars? That's revenge too?
Sure.
And Pulp Fiction is Arthurian? Hey, buddy, you can recollect the entire history of human life on Earth and find it in anything you so wish, if you look hard enough for it.
That's not going to change one iota of the fact that it's story telling garbage. As I said before, I can smear my dick cheese onto a plate and find the meaning of life in it.
But that doesn't make me an artist. It makes me a charlatan.
And it makes you, a defender of a charlatan.
Hey, charlatans need their mindless groupies too.
You are weak.
Please don't waste my time again. You insult your own self by bothering to have an opinion in the first place.

Snobbery, much? Just for shits and giggles, name an Indian (India) artist whose work falls within an "objective" view as art.
I agree with you on the point that not anybody calling themselves an "artist" is.

...you're an excitable fellow, aren't you?
And you're the very type of person I had to write my very next post for. You know, the one where I pointed out that people who couldn't understand what I was doing from context shouldn't think I was trying to describe those movies as simple revenge stories but merely pointing out how easy it was to do the sort of thing you seem so very proud of yourself for doing.
Now what you did was make a challenge. And it was extraordinarily easy to meet.
Once again, for someone who understands context. So now, without supporting evidence, you choose simply to label what I said as...oh the horror of your overwrought language.
Which means you have violated precisely what you wrote endless posts supposedly championing. You know, that uninformed and unsupported opinions were without value.
I presented incident and specifics having to do with two Tarantino films. The Arthurian stuff certainly isn't original with me. It's taught in courses and has been written about extensively.
You have no such supporting material to present so you are reduced to asserting that your opinion...'that it's storytelling garbage'...is supreme.
So you're a hypocrite. Or you don't even know what you just did.
Either way, it's kind of funny.

Those who internalize rules without going beyond were not hurt by Syd Field or anyone else: they never had the honesty and self-awareness to become writers in the first place. As for Sturgeon's Law...I don't think it is usually applied as a palliative, but rather a condemnation of the state of the world. I just re-purposed it.

Okay, let's break this down here.
You claim Pulp Fiction is Arthurian inspired/based/whatever.
That may well be the case. It's still not story telling. I don't think it's a bad film.
Not at all. I think it's a very entertaining, well conceived film.
But it's not art. It's just a series of enjoyable pictures and voices playing in a sequence before my eyes.
You can inject as much symbolism as you wish. For instance, I can have a cow and a donkey standing in a field, doing nothing (or just shitting onto the grass, whatever), and claim that this is a metaphor for the origins of the cosmos and the meaning of life.
You think I am just talking?
Well, let's do it right now.
Okay, the donkey represents a particle. An anti particle (anti cow, so to speak) and the cow represents a particle.
They are watching each other, and are emotionless. They have no real concept of their meaning and existence, but are producing something (excrement) none the less. Without particles/anti-particles, our universe wouldn't exist. In fact, there is such a thing as an "anti-universe" filled with anti-particles. But they complement each other (like the donkey and the cow).
The wide, open field, represents the wideness and openness of our cosmos. It also represents the uncertainty of the future of life (and matter/particle and anti-matter/anti-particle).
This field also represents the fields of space-time. Fields are imortant in both Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Field Theory) and General Relativity (topological fields). The donkey and the cow stand out on this wide field, just like particles/antiparticles do. In fact, particles can be modeled as simply higher concentrations of energy in this wide, 'empty' field.
All particles are merely higher densities of energy, paving the way for the geometry of the space-time continuum, yet the vastness of infinity is emotionless and empty (like the empty, dull faces of the donkey and the cow).
But these dull and boring particles, produce life and help sustain life (excrement is used as fertilizer), so it renews the great, infinitely complex dance of our wondrous interactions of energy in this vast (grassy) field of nature.
Wow, how deep. How meaningful. How all-encompassing.
Hey, that scene alone has more meaning than anything tarrantino ever conceived. And all I had to do was exercise a wee bit of imagination and target my intent, and before you know it, a donkey and a cow, facing each other, shitting in a field, provides us with a vast exploration of the cosmos and all the intricacies within.
In fact, I could go on forever with that particular interpretation. But I'll stop.
My point is: Art is art, irrespective of the underlying and interpreted message. If you have a wonderful message, but pathetic artistic merit, then you have a turd on your hands.
Unfortunately, that's the case with Lucas' Star Wars prequels. He had a wonderful story to tell, and made a shit burger out of it, because he is not an artist and doesn't know HOW to tell that story with the filmic medium. That doesn't mean he cannot conceive of a great story.
But art is not just about having a great story to tell. It's actually about TELLING that very story.
And that's the problem with Tarantino. As I said, I don't care if you see the meaning of our cosmos in his films. You can see what you wish. At the end of the day, you have John and Samuel discussing the metric system, killing a few homies and snorting some coke.
That's. About. It.
Sure, it's told in an entertaining and engaging way. That does count for something.
It just, once again, doesn't add up to a story, and therefore, it doesn't constitute art.
Have you understood this yet, or are you still struggling to move a couple of neurons in your brain from one synapse to the other?
Give it a shot. It's not that hard.

...you did specifically claim that it was impossible to describe any Tarantino film without using the word revenge. What were your exact words now...
'That's simple: He never really has any stories to tell.
What are his stories?
Are you still thinking?
Oh, there's a catch: You're not allowed to use the word revenge.'
Yeah, so I did that. With specifics, which I know you both champion and avoid with equal fervor. I'll be happy to do it about more of his films too, if you come up with something new that makes it fun for me. And even in those where the word revenge would be required there's a whole lot more going on. Hmmm...just like in Shawshank or The Godfather.
Right, but you already missed that point.
Now on to whether Pulp Fiction is storytelling.
You are simply expressing your opinion. You have given no reason why it isn't, just made the claim and then ruminated on farm animals.
Which is, I will admit, a bit disturbing.
You do make some comment about how Pulp Fiction is just some character dicussing the metric system and shooting someone...
...once again, I could describe The Godfather as guys discussing how to make pasta and shooting someone.
But see, I wouldn't, except to point out how silly your position is.
I think I'm done with you now. You were funny for awhile but now you're just repeating yourself.

Sigh.
My dear, challenged friend: The problem with your 'analogy', is that there is a lot more going on with the Godfather, than making pasta and shooting people.
In Pulp Fiction, there is not. Symbolic/Philosophical interpretations of that, which is presented on screen, is not story telling, that's fantasizing.
I don't need to fantasize about what I see on screen, to recognize a basic story and a basic development of characters (not just Michael).
Pulp Fiction has no story, because it has no central character undergoing development.
It's this simple. This is not about film school guidelines, but basic, natural laws governing the essence of the language of art (and cinematic art, in particular).
Michael Corleone is first and foremost exactly what he appears to be, without the unnecessary and futile philosophical pandering you choose to engage in, to justify your poor understanding of art.
You falsely believe you're engaging in a debate with me. You're simply playing with words here. You think there is a correlation between my simple analysis of Tarantino and his films (because he is simple and his films are simple, which you conveniently choose to ignore/deny) and the depth and complexity of a Shawshank Redemption or a Star Wars, despite it being shown in a deceptively simple way.
You're one to believe that everything can have a deep underlying message and be interpreted (or opined) to be story. Once again: You're a cheap and rather unintelligent anarchist, defending your simple-minded Tarantino.
Look, do it. Defend your wannabe story teller. Defend Britney Spears, or Andy Warhol or the garbage collector from down the street.
After all, it's just a matter of opinion.
Right.
Well, let's agree that you're an idiot who likes to piss in a cup and call it apple juice, and leave it at that.
And me being repetitive only speaks volumes about you and your incapacity to understand that, which is communicated to you the first time around.
I said before and I will say this again: Humanity has a very long way to go, before it learns how to appreciate (let alone produce) art. The inability to understand art, does not excuse the ignoramuses to start throwing their empty opinions into the stratosphere and start speculating about who or what art really is.
It's very simple. Take a look at nature and what it produces. Learn to appreciate the differences between these products. I.e., understand what dog shit is not on the same level as a rose garden or an oak tree.
Once you learn these basic laws of form/color/sound/development/rhythm/correspondence/individuality from variety/etc, then you can come back here and resume your conversation with me.
As I know that you will not even bother, because you already consider yourself a mighty and established intellect, I can safely bid you adieu and call it a mutually beneficial conclusion to this time-wasting exercise of ours (me for failing to teach you, and you for failing to learn).
Good luck...

...you're coming at it from a different perspective than I am. The Field doctrine has come to, in successive permutations, dominate the creative landscape in Hollywood. Because of this (and based on some posts of yours I suspect you know this as well as I) writers who could do better work tailor their material to fit with what the market accepts. Because writers like to eat as much as anyone else. And although some of these projects are better than those done by the (majority) of folks who come out of the Conservatory or elsewhere who were never going to do anything better...some of them aren't.
Because the folks who greenlight material often tend to rise to their positions based on managerial and not creative skills they often can't tell the difference anyway, because at best they're looking to see if the script has certain beats in certain places.
Now none of this is absolute. These are tendencies though, and though they are perhaps a bit less pervasive now than they were ten to fifteen years ago, they're still the default position. And it doesn't make any of these guys bad guys, either (some of them may be, but this isn't the deciding factor).
As for the Sturgeon thing I just think there's a fatalism there that offered a certain comfort to me as a young man but strikes me as a little self aware and patronizing as I get older.
And now look, Hipshot, you know I have my head at least as far up my ass as most people who post here, but as I get older my definition of what's 'crap' is getting a lot smaller.
I mean what all of us want to do is write (or create however) something that entertains and enlightens. Or maybe just entertains.
I've done both, and when I was younger I made a lot of arrogant and ignorant decisions based on not wanting to be associated with that 90% that was 'crap'. And because I made those decisions (and some other really bad ones) I ended up having to produce some real crap for a number of years.
But a couple years ago I saw that some stuff I'd written under a pseudonym in the 80s not only had a site devoted to it but the original paperbacks (done as works for hire...60,000 words for $500.00) were selling for over $300.00 a copy.
I still think it's crap. I will certainly never assert ownership of the material or return to the specific genre in which it was written.
But was it really crap? I'm not sure I know anymore. Clearly for some people it was pretty good. So...soap operas? Professional wrestling? The modern soap opera of reality shows? Sure they lack subtlety and nuance, but they surely do entertain a lot of folks.
Yeah, I decry what chaining formula to creative works has done in the recent past. But in different ways people have been doing that forever, in many cases with the harshest forms of censorship, and great art has still flourished. And I suppose to some degree all of it gets remembered. Remember Joyce Carol Oates and her metropolis of writing.
But to bring this back around to what we were originally talking about...yes, there have always been bits of conventional wisdom that were harmful...and there has always been formulaic hackery...but that's no reason not to call out its current causes.

...my ten year old is already too mature to stomp his foot, say 'because I said so!' and stand, with jutted jaw and quivering lip, wishing only for the world to conform solely to his tastes and desires.
You have not.
I understand theme and symbolism are beyond you. That's fine. We'll forget about them, because just like someone who doesn't believe in air because you can't see it, your brain will not grow three sizes today and I have neither the time nor inclination to walk you through the entire history of critical analysis of the arts. And let's face it; I'd just be wasting my time and annoying the pig.
Jules...abandons his former life and makes the choice not to kill Honey Bunny and Pumpkin, his first act as the man he will become.
Butch...manages to finally leave the milieu he detested so much not by the subterfuge and betrayal which formed his first plan but by the selfless act of refusing to leave another human being, even one who had intended him harm, in a situation that would have ended with his horrific death.
Vince...who does not grow, who rejects growth at every turn...dies. And I know you can't understand even the most basic symbolism but he dies on his third trip into the bathroom...with each of his trips into the bathroom marking a moment in which he was unable to deal with a potentially life threatening event. He was in the bathroom when Mia overdoses. He was in the bathroom when Honey Bunny and Pumpkin start the robbery. He was in the bathroom when Butch kills him.
There's a ton of stuff going on in Pulp Fiction...a ton of characterization and character growth...and yes, a ton of even cooler stuff for those of us who can handle concepts beyond the most strictly literal and cause and effect.
But even for those who can't...there's plenty of great stuff.
Guess you missed that, too.
Come on, make another subjective screed based on nothing but your opinion...and then decry people doing that.
You stick out that jaw. You're a big, big guy.

Well reasoned and presented. I don't look at guidelines as being problems. Syd Field isn't the problem--people's need to have "an answer" is the problem. I doubt movies would be better if he hadn't been born. Nor do I think they'd be worse. People would be quoting Aristotle or John Truby or someone instead.
##
As for Sturgeon...you know, I thought it was a bit fatalistic, but I also took it as inspiration. If 90% of "everything" is crap, then I had to write ten stories for every single good one I wanted. Fair enough. I let that set me free to be unafraid of writing crap, and let my unconscious mind produce what it could. I only met Ted Sturgeon a couple of times, never had a real conversation with him, so I couldn't tell you squat about what he did or didn't mean by it. I think it's kinda cool, but maybe a bit too facile at that.
Again...well played, sir.

...there's no arguing with your point about Field. You being correct will not stop me from referring to him as 'that damned stupid Field' but I certainly cede the point.
And I like your take on Sturgeon. I like it very much indeed.
Actually, you just made me a little ashamed of myself. That's just so positive.
(i suspect i'm going to steal it).

It's amazing, how in a series of posts to you, you still didn't get the point.
Let me be more blunt, as only somebody of your dull wit could possibly expect:
Depth and Meaning has nothing to do with art or story telling.
This does not imply it is worthless or without value. It's a good and important supplement.
However, these do not come in front of or in lieu of story and character development.
They come after. They come, once you sit down, and try to discuss the artwork in further detail.
You can sit and discuss the meaning of Star Wars or Shawshank or Godfather until the cows come home.
But first and foremost, you need to find the story and the character development.
After this, you can discuss symbolism, depth, meaning (i.e. CONTENT of story).
As I said before (it's amazing how dumb you really are), Lucas had a brilliant story to tell in the Star Wars prequels.
But he failed miserably in his exercise of trying to tell that story.
Tarrantino has never told a story in his life. Not one that he has personally directed, anyway.
I trust your doofus donkey brain to conjure a story out of a box of pig shit, but if you analyse it objectively, there is no story in any of his films.
Revenge doesn't constitute a story -- it can be a part of it, but not be the central premise and plot of one.
It's like calling Sex a story. Calling a shoot out a story. Calling an argument a story. Revenge is just another reaction to a previous event. A story is not.
So, once again dumb-ass:
Interpreting the deeper symbolism is fine and good, but comes after (way after) we have established our protagonist and his/her journey throughout the story arc.
This is not a film guideline that's ready to be broken by a square-jawed yokel and be justified by a pseudo-intellectual pseudo-critic of art like yourself.
So, back to Godfather: When I see Michael walking down a street, talking to his gf, this is what I will interpret, FIRST and foremost. I see a man manipulating a woman, to gain something by feigning the right of previous wrongs. This is not interpretation or philosophy or depth. This is what's on screen.
ONCE I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS, I AM ALWAYS AT LIBERTY TO THINK DEEPER INTO THIS AND WONDER WHETHER OR NOT MICHAEL REPRESENT THE REINCARNATION OF SATAN OR WHAT-THE-FUCK-EVER.
Do you get it yet, you nose-picking half-wit?
Do you see how this applies to Tarrantino and his pointless films? This means that first and foremost, I see (let's say in Pulp Fiction), a couple of gangsters sitting around, chewing the fat. I see people being shot.
I hear the word "motherfucker" unnecessarily, about 15 too many times. I see Samuel being Samuel, and Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis. I hear a lot of amusing and semi-amusing dialogue. I see a heavy black man being raped by a skinny white cop. I see how scenes are mixed in and out of order and how the scene at the beginning develops into its own ending after many other scenes shown out of order.
This is what I see. This is what I hear. I am not sitting there trying to philosophize further, because that is what comes AFTER we have established the basic story structure and central character(s).
And because Pulp Fiction lacks in those two crucial factors, I will not bother thinking any further -- Arthurian legend or not.
As I said: Godfather symbolizes plenty more than what is basically shown on screen, but it also stands on its own two feet by being able to argue its point with what it shows on screen, not what is offscreen (philosophy/fantasy/speculation/interpretation/etc is all offscreen.)
Do you understand this?
So, I do not care how you interpret Honey Bunny and Pumpkin's interactions and its symbolism.
Art and Story telling is not about symbolism. Symbolism COMPLEMENTS a story, but can never, ever replace it or stand in lieu of it.
I have repeated myself at least 6 million times now, and I am sure you still didn't get it.
In fact, I am sure you will come back and argue your same bullshit and come up with how John Travolta represents Arch Angel Gabriel and how Samuel is a reincarnation of Santa's Little Helper.
Dude, blow it out your ass. I will start caring about symbolism, once I see a story in front of me. Not a pretend-story, not a symbolic story, not a pseudo story, but an actual one.
And all your lame, weak, pathetic attempts at defending your own ignorance ain't gonna change a damn thing.
And this is all I will say to you. I hope you will one day re-read this, and understand. I know you don't get it yet. But I hope one day you will.
Maybe then you might write a letter to Tarantino and ask him to pull his thumb out of his ass crack and actually tell a fucking story and develop a character arc.
Goodbye to you.

...yes dear, those are your subjective interpretations of what you see and hear.
You can't see manipulation. You see a man speaking to a woman. And you interpret what you are seeing and hearing (his words, expression, body language) in a way that leads you to believe that he is manipulating someone.
Or you don't.
That is subjective. Now when you saw those 'gangsters' in Pulp Fiction 'chew the fat' you didn't see anymore.
Once again, you made a subjective interpretation of what you saw and heard.
Someone else might make another.
The world outside you is real, empie. The rest of us also perceive and interpret the world around us.
Telling us how you interpreted outside stimulus does not constitute an argument.
Only a pathology.
Okay, this is fun again.

Saw the original with Franco Nero (which is awesome), VIVA, DJANGO (aka: GET A COFFIN READY) with Terrance Hill and pretty sure I caught Lee Van Cleef as the character in something but none of them are officially sequels other then DJANGO STRIKES AGAIN which I have never seen but sounds super-cool.
This just doesn't do it for me, unfortunately. I'm not the biggest fan of Tarantino as it is (you say 'homage' I say 'rip-off', let's call the whole thing off) and this just looks like more of the same rip-offery.

... do NOT like the '70s funk music in the trailer.
Really hoping he doesn't rely on it too much (if at all) in the actual film.
And I hate to say it, but I've never been a Jamie Foxx fan, either.
Other than that, I'm pretty stoked to see this.
Love me some QT, who ALWAYS delivers something interesting and out of the norm.
Plus, Leo looks like he's having a blast. He may finally win me over with this one.
Come out with guns blazin', Django -- I'm with ya!
Yeehaaaaaaw!

I read above that its supposed to be some sort of clever nod to the original movies, but the vast majority of the audience will be thinking, "Er, why the fuck would anyone think there was a 'D' in there?"

What is this communist mumbo jumbo? Sounds like commie BULLSHIT!!!
You a Marxist?
Also I think your definition of art is biased. Very euro-centric classical.
Anyways I do appreciate the critique of QT - you are correct here, minus where you state his film do not meet the criteria to be considered "art". You forget the uses of cinematography and staging, some QT directs incredibly well and are completely legitimate art forms. Composition and framing. You may argue that these are technical crafts but you'd be wrong. Photography is art and yes composition confirms to standards that qualify them as art. Lots of art to be found in a QT movie. I agree about his scripts though.

Is Foxx - never liked him. Should have cast Elba ( I think he was in consideration).
I don't know what it is but Foxx just seems like an asshole. I'll admit the only thing I saw him in (other than In Living Color when I was a child was the Miami Vice debacle)

Several years ago my ex's school had an exhibit of student's art.
One piece was a pop tart covered in pubic hair.
At the time I was all, "WTF? Really? That's not art, that's some hipster douche thinking it's art and he/she is a visionary out to shock the world or make some kind of a statement. What fucking talent did that take?"
Now, years later, I believe there are two prerequisites for art: make a statement and evoke a response.
I still don't care for the pop tart or think it is a work of genius but I'll tell you this: Of all the pieces I saw that night the pop tart is the only one I remember, the only one that, good or bad, made an impact.
Like I said, I still fucking hate that pop tart, but if the "artist" wanted to make a statement(anything can be art) and evoke a response(anger, disbelief) mission accomplished.

I'm surprised Tarantino is doing such a violent film that involves hunting down an 'x' amount of people as the plot.
Next you'll tell me Michael Bay is going to start using gratuitous explosions in his films.

Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs remain my two favorite QT films. I enjoyed Kill Bill (and upon seeing it again recently find it even better than I remember) but Death Proof was kind of a bust. Inglorious Basterds was great too – the opening scene of that film is particularly amazing.
But, I would love to see QT tackle something slightly more serious, I still think the reaction to Jackie Brown knocked him of course a bit – I would be excited to see his take on something a bit more dramatic.
Regardless, QT remains one of the most interesting filmmakers alive.

And the best part about IB is that the hyperbolic jew-worship evinced therein should be enough to wake up a few folks. Seems like Django is upping the ante a notch with the wall-to-wall white hatred, so maybe that's a good thing.

Best black-hat ever.
I also just watched For a Few Dollars More for the first time since I was young and stir-crazy, and I forgot Van Cleef was the avenging father Col. Mortimer.
He doesn't want the dough. Great scene.

Thank you for your post. I do see your point, and I would say to you that it is somewhat relevant to call cinematography, framing, editing etc, art, but only superficially so.
Do I consider it technical? No, only partially.
You have rasied, however, a very valid point, and I will try briefly to explain to you what cinema is supposed to be (or any completed work of art, not just cinema!)
Okay, now, you might have a particular individual (I will NOT call him/her an artist!), who is an exceptional drawer. Has a great eye for detail, placement, motion, composition, depth, shape, balance, etc.
Does this alone make him an artist? Answer: A resounding NO!
You can have a brilliant photographer or a brilliant drawer or a brilliant dancer. This is not art. This is handicraft. It's a skill. A particular tool that can be used to create art (say, a Vivaldi opera or a Bach choral work, etc).
It is absolutely crucial that we do not confuse a completed work (which may potentially be called art) to a particular tool used to create that work.
I have had this argument with my girlfriend before. She is a dancer, she teaches dance also and runs her own dance company. She was very insulted (almost furious), when I told her that dance alone is not art, no matter how sophisticated or skilled the dancer may be. She was outraged.
But I stand with my position, because art is something beyond handicraft. If you can combine dance elements (say ballet), into an epic opera (say from Mozart), then you may have a masterwork of art before you.
The unfortunate problem with our society today is, the democratization of individual development.
Almost everybody with a PhD is considered a genius. Almost everybody who can excel at a sport, a craft, a skill, whatever, is called an artist/genius/etc
People do not know of what they speak.
Some might argue that I am arguing semantics here. I am not, in truth. I am stating that the word 'art' is reserved for a work that demonstrates (represents) an elevated idea in nature.
And please do not start calling everything an 'idea' now. When I speak of an idea, I speak of the platonic world of ideas.
These are reality ideas. Everybody thinks that if they shit out something out of their brain, they have an 'idea.'
No, it's called a brain fart. Or more politely: a thought. Thoughts can be logical/illogical/true/false/real/unreal/etc.
There are emotional and mental thoughts (please do not ask me for the difference of the two, because I don't want to go off on that tangent for now).
Ironically enough, this does seem to boil down to semantics. Perhaps it does from a certain perspective. The fact is, not everybody has an idea (access to reality content), and not everybody is an artist. In fact, most humans live in a sea of illusions and fictions (perversions of reality ideas).
An artwork is a culmination of high handicraft composed into a singular, coherent, purposive and structurally uniform expression of reality ideas.
Sound too complicated for you? I am sorry. I am not trying to complicate the issue.
When a human being expresses through their own being (soul if you will), a culmination of their highest abilities using all the best tools available to communicate a timeless ideal (note how that is in essence an idea), then we may start speaking of art.
What's my point? My point is: You can suddenly see now, how difficult it truly is to be an artist. Now you understand, perhaps, that most humans cannot do this, and therefore, cannot call themselves artists.
Goethe was an artist. Shakespeare was an artist. Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist. Michaelangelo was an artist. (Note: Picasso was not -- I'll leave it up to you to decide why...)
Isaac Newton was an artist. Leibniz was an artist. Lord Bulwer Lytton was an artist. JRR Tolkien was an artist (note: GRR Martin, as much as I enjoy Game of Thrones, is not an artist, and is not even 1/10th of what Tolkien was, irrespective what a few self-proclaimed critics like to dribble).
Albert Einstein was an artist. Richard Feynman was not. Jacque Fresco is an artist. Nikola Tesla was an artist (a truly wonderful artist indeed). Thomas Edison, was not! (I'll let you think about that one).
Plato was an artist (what a wonderful artist he was!)
Sokrates was not. Aristotle came close, but missed the mark slightly.
Look, I am not going to beat this point in any further.
You may continue to believe this is a matter of opinion, but the more you learn and understand what I have written here, the more you will recognize what real art is.
By the way: No pop musician ever achieved art.
I would say that in the film industry, very few directors have achieved art.
Peter Jackson came quite close with his adaptation of Lord of the Rings. He would have, however, been able to call himself an artist, if he had actually written the story (LOTR) himself. He did not.
Milos Forman came very close with his brilliant film "Amadeus."
But still it is not sufficiently his own work to be labelled art. It his not the true expression that has flowed through his own being. So he still is not an artist.
So which film directors have? Interestingly enough, I think James Cameron was showing signs of promise with Avatar, but the subpar screenplay failed to get him across the mark of art.
To be perfectly honest with you guys, I have to sit down and think long and hard about a film that can be called "art."
At the moment, I am struggling to find candidates.
Maybe, just maybe, Kubrick's: 2001 A space Odyssey is as close to art as is possible in film. So, I'll let you guys ponder about that.
I am aware that everybody these days think of themselves as artists. Well, they are not. No actor alive is an artist. They may be masters of their craft (some), but they are not artists.
I hope this somewhat clarifies the difference between art/artwork and craftsmen/crafts (I am aware that handicraft refers mostly to the use of hands, but I used that word anyway).
I have not checked this for typos, so I hope it makes some sense.

Christopher Waltz is his mentor. The only hatred would be toward that segment of the white population who supported, practiced or defended slavery. Now, that group is certainly mostly white folks, but that's not QT's fault. And one can leave that "group" simply by no longer supporting or practicing or apologizing for the institution. I know that is difficult for certain white people, but then...that's not the color of their skin, that's the content of their character.

Because of the astounding volatility of the subject matter. Laughter is a release of tension. I honestly believe white audiences would find the imagery unendurable without some of that release. You're going to see a lot of talk-back comments suggesting that even WITH that humor, many cannot deal with the theme of revenge against an institution that caused massive, massive damage to a group of innocent people. Whites who consider that they and their ancestors would have resisted or fought against slavery will have less trouble. I'd bet that those who can trace their ancestry to Southerners, who fly Confederate flags or are obsessed with Confederate history, are apologists for slavery or like the kind of vomitous rhetoric about it "not being so bad" are gonna avoid this like the plague. Many won't be honest enough to admit what it is about this that makes them feel uncomfortable and will instead attack QT on "aesthetic" grounds. Watch the blow-back. It's gonna be fun.

You want to put things in a special little box and say this is worthy and that isn't, but life isn't that straightforward. In your opinion, there is no work of film that can be called art. And that's kind of stupid, and incredibly reductive.
Art doesn't just mean "you like it."
The difference between crafts and art is, a craftsman a lot of times will make, let's say a vase. But they don't just make one vase, they make many many vases that all basically look the same, based off a general template they use to stock stores with. And artist may make one vase in a way that he deems special. But then you come along and say you don't like the handle so he's not an artist, he's a craftsman.
And photography or whatever can absolutely be an art...it's not just the technical act of taking a photo, any monkey can do that. It's how you shoot it, the angle you choose, do you use available lighting or use light, and where do you place the light. These are artistic choices.
And your views aren't even consistent. You think ballet isn't art, but if you combine ballet with a Mozart opera, it is? Why? How does that happen, where's the singular vision?
I think the person above who mentioned the Pop Tart covered in hair makes a good point, It's easy to call that some crappy junk made by an asshole, but here he is, years later, and that's what he remembers. So that motherfucker suceeded.
Honestly, your views seem pretty snobby. Don't be one of those guys who nitpicks at everything, life's more fun when you don't.

I've spent my entire working life in the arts, and have been surrounded by artists of one kind or another since childhood. Teaching, observing, and creating work which many consider "art" earns me a place in this discussion, if nothing else.
My definition goes like this: "art" is Self expression. Note the capitalization. That means it is an attempt to communicate some deep sense of the universe, or our own being. If my son dips his hand in the toilet and smears it on the wall with feeling, turns and expects me to be happy, that is "art" whether I realize it or not, whether anyone else agrees or not, whether it is acknowledged or not.
Now, then..."craft" is the skill with which the artist wields his tools. Those skills enable him to communicate his meaning to the external world. Craft without art can be beautiful or useful. Art without craft remains unknown and (probably rightly) unappreciated. Join art and craft together and you have something that the community will agree is "valuable", that "speaks their language" and are then willing to promote and pay for.
The trick is teaching people to tell the truth about their emotions and perceptions, and then to have sufficient "craft" at the level of unconscious competence that they can express that truth of vision while juggling a dozen balls--roughly what combining art and craft demands. I am perfectly aware that this definition doesn't match what is taught in many schools. However--I've had a chance to actually speak to many artists, writers, dancers, actors, poets and others who were and are greatly respected by academics, and this rough definition seems to encapsulate much of what they believed to be true. I find the definition and perspective useful, and that's as close to truth on the matter as I can get.

Dude, all your points have been addressed by me (and others) in previous posts...
This is why I will not bother now responding to you in detail.
I will state to you however, that I have made it explicitly clear, that liking something doesn't constitute it being art.
In fact, I made several admissions of works that I personally enjoy (Death Metal music, Game of Thrones, and plenty of movies), but I can also be objective and admit that this is not art.
Please, if there is anything you take away from my posts, at the very least you can recognize that I do not judge art to be that which I personally enjoy. Who says I sit here all day admiring the works of say a Leonardo or a Shakespeare?
To be honest, I spend more time jerking off to porn, than I do enjoying the great works of art in our history.
Sad, but true; but I can admit it.
So please, if there is one single thing you take away from my lengthy posts, it's this: Art doesn't have an ego. You either are an artist, or you're not. It's not based on opinion, and it is not a subjective, "anything goes" endeavor.
There are objective, universal, natural laws governing art, just like the governance of physical and metaphysical laws. So please do not be so stupid as to think that I am somebody who labels art as that, which I prefer most.
There are plenty of stupid films I enjoy, possibly more so than true works of art. So spare me the silly, shallow and false speculations in the future.
Thank you.

What Emperor doesn't acknowledge is "bad" art. By his terms, bad art can't even exist because if he doesn't like it, it's not art at all. There's tons of heartfelt material made by passionate people who have weak skills, and it sucks. It's the combination.
I'd say Avatar is a work of art by James Cameron, and I don't even like the movie all that much. But it's exactly the movie he wanted to make, on his terms. If I don't like it, who cares? He seems satisfied with it.
And how much "pure" art is there? Emperor says Shakespeare is an artist, but a lot of his plays were based on stories already told, or history. And he wasn't a purist, he wrote for the crowd that would throw produce if they got bored. So he made sure to put in low comedy and fighting and exciting stuff. Playing to the crowd isn't what an artist does, so Shakespeare can't really be called a true artist, right?

Tarantino's last several movies have been average at best. 'Inglorious Basterds' was highly over rated. It could have been so much more.
I like some of what Tarantino does, but despite Pulp Fiction and maybe the first part of Kill Bill, nothing else even comes close to the unadulterated praise and admiration thrown his way from his loyalists.
Personally, I think Tarantino is trying too hard to show how "Hip" he really is. While some of his shot choices are nice, and his stories can be interesting, the only truly complete story of his was Pulp Fiction. That was tight, got an Oscar nod...and actually deserved it.
But there is too much masturbatory praise going on before the movie is even released. Now if you grade him on trailers....he gets and A+.... but when you fill in the 100+ minutes around the 2 minute trailer....you lose a lot.
And it just may not be that good.....and it hasn't been lately.
Do I hope this is a good movie? Yes. Would I love to see another story with the strength of Pulp Fiction? Yes. Am I ready to kneel in front of Tarantino just because he is Tarantino?
No. He has had too many mediocre movies as of late.
-- End of Line --

Death Proof comes out, suddenly you hear people saying he's been in decline since Kill Bill. Inglourious Basterds comes out and suddenly Pulp Fiction is overrated. Now he just sucks all over.
(Notice that they skip any reference to one of his best movies, which is Jackie fucking Brown).

That's the price a director pays for being around longer than three movies, or making movies that the geeks wish they were making themselves. I knew an indie director who was basically making the exact same type of movies that Tarantino was doing...but the guy thought Tarantino sucked. But what happened was, Tarantino was making the non-shitty versions of the flicks this guy was doing, so there was some jealousy there, I think. Even if he didn't know it.

That was the moment Tarantino jumped the shark.
The worst thing that happened to him was everyone raving about how great his dialogue was. It never was the best attibute he had as a filmmaker, and now it's possibly his worst.

I do hate Jamie Foxx for his cracks about the Johnny Cash movie as if he thought he somehow invented biographies about musicians and resented the Cash movie so I haven't wanted to see anything he's been in. This looks good however, despite Foxx. Maybe.

He comes off as a smarmy asshole. Would have LOVED to have seen a reigned-in Will Smith like they were originally talking about. Could you imagine Smith, DiCaprio, Russell, Costner, Jackson in the same movie? It would be like the Western Avengers.
Still, I doubt Foxx will be all that bad. He seems okay in the trailer, and he can be an okay actor.

Classic Greek drama discouraged "new" stories in preference to reinterpreting known myths and previous epics. Art isn't doing something new. It's putting your own craft into an emotional structure. If you don't invent new letters to write, or new notes to compose, combining images to hit new emotional chords can birth art as surely as anything else.

is there a money-paying audience for this? I know my subject line statement was deliberately superficial but that is precisely what alot of American audiences are seeing here, adding comedy or action doesn't really change that. I AM curious and I WILL support it like the imo terrific Watchmen but this film seems like a career-killer.

I think that a lot of the best art produced involved luck. You know, alignment of the stars kinda stuff. Maybe a flash of brilliance brought on by some intense emotional state. But certainly to be consistent you got to be able to produce art in the manner you describe.

My friend...don't you understand that when you spend your days immersed in the "flow" of your work, striving to improve, you create the garden in which "luck seeds", drifting on the wind of chance, can take root? "Luck favors the prepared mind" is an aspect of this idea. You must be acting.
If you do, constantly, paying attention to your work, your work will vary in quality. Sometimes bad. And sometimes...remarkable. You may or may not be able to replicate that "remarkable" but that is not your task. Your task is to chop wood, carry water. Every damned day.
##
Now, then...if you're talking about acceptance by the outside world? Rewards? Money? Fame? Blowjobs from porn stars? Wellll..that's luck, or synching with the zeitgeist. Steven King writes like a madman, has produced wonderful work, but his popularity could not be predicted--that was "luck". His quality, however, could be pretty much predicted, or at least there is nothing surprising about someone who has encyclopedic knowledge of his field, and works obsessively for decades. "Luck" is important in external success, but it is work, and honesty, that produces the art that satisfies us as artists.
My two cents on it, anyway.

They're not killing white people. They're killing slavers, most of whom are white. All white audiences have to do to enjoy the film is NOT empathize with the slavers. Nobody is whiter than a German, dude. We'll be able to sit back and, by listening to the squealing, know who empathizes with freedom, and who is, under the skin, a racist Johnny Reb. Ah, it's gonna be fun.

I had a friend like him. Uses same tone of prose, everything. Hey this may even be him. Either way none of his "friends" can stand him now. Oh he convinces himself that he's centre of it all but his self delusion of grandeur and self mastubatory, self agrandisement doesn't deflect from the main reality, that nobody likes a smart-arse.
He may rate himself. He may have a deep seated need to ego boost but in the end...nobody likes him.
So ignore the bore. He's just trolling.

Dead right. The way I look at Hollywood collaboration is this: if you had a glass of beer, and spit in it, it would still taste pretty much like beer. But if you passed it around the room and EVERYONE spit in it, by the time it got back to you, it would be more spit than beer. The chances you or anyone else would enjoy the taste ain't great.
That said, it's a freaking miracle that any movies, made anywhere, are any good. And god, I love good movies! They really are little miracles.

It was fine before but if this entire movie is set to soul train I give up. I agree with past comments that call out this 'style' as boring retreads with slight tweaks with big names attached as per usual, love the idea of Leo working with QT, hate the idea of that pompous self absorbed ass Jamie fox being the lead, you were good in Ray...go home.
I heard there's a great scen where Foxx cuts off some guys ear as 'In the Jungle (the lion sleeps tonight)' plays in the background.

(and assuming that script's real) NO WAY ... Not with Tarantino's grindhouse/blaxploitation sensibilities. It's like Eminem doing a rap song and saying Nigga with the same ease as Tupac Shakur. America has come a long way but not THAT far. I'm calling it now and please allow me to ramble a little, this is just a prediction, I may be suprised but Django Unchained will scare business away just like the brilliantly acted American History X did years ago. There was a time when bad publicity meant good publicity but nowadays bad publicity means decent weekend opening from the curious then severe drop off and career-death. The script is not even bad...To use another analogy, it's like a really talented stand up comic who tells jokes that are so raw and painfully honest they make audience members walk out feeling bad. (see Doug Stanhope...never heard of him?...exactly)

Tarantino's career: 2 great films (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) 2 good films (Jackie Brown, Kill Bill vol.1)
... and a load of other films since that had some good scenes but were otherwise totally shit.

Even the short piece in "Four Rooms" was amusing. Wasn't overwhelmed by "Jackie Brown." Wait. Maybe that one did let me down. Other than that, "Death Proof" was a deliberately bad movie, and a terrific one. Get a collection of "Grind House" movies and see if DP doesn't fit right in there, as "Planet Terror" did with goopy creature features. Kill Bill was terrific, and the end of Part II, with Bill giving her a chance to prove she was strong enough to raise his child...was classic. The scene where he's making the sandwich with the kid and the knife...shit, man. Anything could have happened in that scene. Anything. And "Inglorious Basterds", once I got the joke that it wasn't a movie about WW2, it was a movie about movies about WW2. Brad Pitt's very deliberately bad B-movie tough guy acting is priceless. Christopher Waltz was sensational, going from hyper-real to B-movie Nazi when his story line crossed with Pitt's. Loved it. And the burning movie screen was one of the best movie images I've ever seen. No, he can be an evil child instead of a mature artist, but the guy is playing above the level of the game. I understand him not being to someone else's taste, but I seriously love this new, fertile period in his career.

I like different. are all his flicks all time classics? Of course not but he does make good to great movies. I want to see him to Luke Cage/Iron Fist set in the 70's, that would be some badass cool fucking shit right there.

But then again pretty much everything Tarantino has done since the day he became a "genius" has been overrated shit. Seriously, watched Pulp Fiction recently and enjoyed it but even there you can see him getting too close to the edge at times. Pulp and Dogs were the high points. Everything else has been frankly embarassing if you ask me. The long, slow decline of a guy who has feasted on his own press for too long.

I can even see disliking them, but "shit?" And really, how is Basterds stylistically THAT different from Pulp Fiction? They're both long, overwritten (to me in a good way) with bouts of violence.
What movies do you guys think are great?
And I do think Tarantino makes classics. In 100 years they'll still be talking about him.

I'd bet Spike isn't happy, but then that's Spike's schtick around race--he doesn't like white people mining territory he thinks black directors should be handling. In context, that's like Native Americans being unhappy when white people play Indians--denies their own people work, and can lead to unfortunate stereotypes. But despite the fact that Spike can be a pain about such things, I have no more reason to consider him a racist than almost any white director: Spike has hired, and directed white actors with great dignity and force. More than Tarantino, if I'm not mistaken.

He can be a total loudmouth asshole a lot of times, but his movies give everyone a pretty fair shake. I think whities just have problems with them because the whites aren't portrayed as saintly perfect people. They're flawed and are treated as human beings. I mean, in Do the Right Thing, I think Sal is pretty much right, even though the black militants do have a point. But hey, it's Sal's joint so if they don't liek it, too bad. But then Sal goes too far. But even THEN, Spike doesn't demonize the guy. And by the same token, Mookie isn't really shown as other than a sort of lazy guy who takes advantage, he's no hero.

He's come a long way since his first film. Note "25th Hour" which has a white protagonist who is intelligent, sensitive, sexual...and survives the film. Try to find a black character presented anything close Ed Norton's hero in, say Woody Allan's work. Or Alfred Hitchcock, or Stanley Kubrick. Or Jim Cameron (Christ sakes, Avatar was Cameron's first movie where a black man with so much as a single line of dialog survived. I would HUGELY rather be a white man in a Spike Lee movie than a black man in a Cameron film. But I digress). Exclusion and derogatory images are, to me, more racist than complaining about prejudice, however grating it can become. The filmmakers I listed are not accused of being racist, and I don't think Spike is either, in any sense that makes real sense. But I think people are very uncomfortable with his positions, that's for sure.

They never have anything sensible to back it up with. Honest critique? Fine, but "He steals everything" isn't it. "He only makes the movies he wants to see" isn't it, because that's what good directors do, they don't make movies they DON'T want to see, do they?
Every time QT comes out with a new movie, these guys want to declare it shit before it's released. They just really love being proven wrong once every few years I suppose.

I recently found a novel on Amazon called The Suicide Game by Andy Rausch that was a lot like a Tarantino story, but even went so far as to feature a character that seemed to be Tarantino himself. There were even foot fetish jokes in there. It ws a pretty good novel though. Has anyone else read it? Did it seem to you like the guy loved or hated Tarantino, because I'm not completely sure. The character was an arse for sure, but the writer seemed to have aped his entire style from QT. It felt very PULP FICTION-y. Any thoughts, mofos? As for DJANGO I can't wait for the Master to completely reinvent the genre the way he has time and time again with his previous films. Rock on, Quentin Fucking Tarantino!!!!

Pulp Fiction is slow as fuck a lot of times. If Pulp was released as Tarantino's seventh movie would people still like it as much? Did we need the scenes detailing the different kinds of drugs Vincent might want to buy? The like eight minutes it takes them in the beginning to get to the job? Bruce Willis walking through alleys for minutes to get to his apartment? The LONG scene of him and whats her name talking about breakfast and getting fat?
Mind you...I liked all of that (well, I could have done without the breakfast). But Tarantino hasn't changed at all with his pacing and dialogue. We have, because now we know what his style is, and it doesn't come with the shock of the new. So we just look at him, unimpressed, and challenge him to blow us away with a brand new take on movies every time he makes one.

Just that it could be made, and how is the pacing of Pulp so much better than Basterds. I mean sure, Pulp has more scenes and rock and roll I guess. But I think the pacing isn't all that different. I think viewers are different, that they grew up with Pulp so it was amazing, now they're older and have seen a bunch of Tarantino's flicks and aren't as impressed.

Some hero rounds up the Israeli General Staff and ties them to stakes and screams "You're all liars, thieves, and murderers! You're about as Jewish as a weeping hemorhoid!" and proceeds to bash in their heads with a hammer. Huh? huh? Pretty cool, eh.